a life cycle of about 100k it might become
an issue very soon. Do note that this may effect only event mode logs not
the stream mode.
-Hoogen
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
r...@e-gerbil.netwrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:45:07PM -0700, Hoogen wrote:
I think flash
it in
their setup, problems that their facing, improvements and general deployment
scenario that have been used.
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Config with a small snapshot of the routing table would be nice..
-Hoogen
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Stefan Fouant
sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net wrote:
Show us your config for 'protocols rip'.
Stefan Fouant
--Original Message--
From: Shane Ronan
To: sfou
Hi Dermot,
Thank you for the suggestion... I had done it.. but no change... I guess if
you see the output from l2vpn connections... It has detected the other site
id correctly... also I guess the ctrl status is up... It's just complaining
I am assuming about the data plane..
Thanks,
Hoogen
# Up trans
21rmt OR
[edit]
l...@r4#
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
VC-Dn - 0
Local interface: ge-0/0/2.600, Status: Up, Encapsulation: VLAN
Remote PE: 10.0.9.6, Negotiated control-word: Yes (Null)
Incoming label: 83, Outgoing label: 84
[edit]
l...@r4#
Thanks,
Hoogen
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Thanks for all the great info Richard...
-Hoogen
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.netwrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 03:11:29AM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
That one is pretty different from the usual slowness issue that seems to
be affecting most
as a part
of the solutions. Is this overdoing the requirement, or am I missing
something..
Any ideas would be great..
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
I would assume so...SRX240.. is not an equivalent to ASR1002..
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.netwrote:
Wouldn't an SRX-650 be a better choice if your comparing to an ASR1002?
From: Kris Amy k...@amy.id.au
To:
...
Another way to just solve your problem would be to have static routes... to
the ABR's.
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Walaa Abdel razzak wala...@bmc.com.sawrote:
Hi
If I did this, then R6 or R7 will prefer datacenter routes through R5 bcoz
they r coming with lower preference than ISIS
It's late night here... excuse my typos and all the gibberish.. But yeah
Static routes maybe the only solution..
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Hoogen hooge...@gmail.com wrote:
What is your topology?.. Is your topology is similar to the book?? The
questions do seem a bit awkward
in lines of the tcl scripts which can be written in Cisco, which a
lot of people used to test connectivity in the CCIE lab exam.
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Thanks for you reply Stefan. Appreciate it..
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Stefan Fouant sfou...@shortestpathfirst.com
wrote:
Hoogen,
I honestly wouldn't waste too much time with TCL scripts, etc. Most of
that
stuff is locked out during the exam... You could script something
external-preference 148 -- Make the nssa def route
preference on R6 and R7 to be lower than that received from the ISIS DC
router.
-Hoogen
2009/11/7 Walaa Abdel razzak wala...@bmc.com.sa
Hi Experts
If you have area 2 nssa receiving default route from the ABR with metric
150, two routers R6
interfaces ae0 -- Should give you some detail.. use the detail switch
for more information
-Hoogen
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:08 AM, chandrasekaran iyer shekar1...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
I would like to run ospf over aggregated interface (say ae2) and
check neighborship comes up, also ping
preference to your internal peers ?
cheers
Sean
On 10/29/09 11:29 PM, Hoogen wrote:
I guess for the solution to work we need to have
autonomous-system 65001 loops 3;
This would make sure we get those routes.
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Hoogen hooge...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay
;
neighbor 10.0.6.1;
}
As you notice there is no policy to deny any routes.. Can someone help me
out here..
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
#
This is really strange.. I compared the solutions, and there seems nothing
wrong..
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Felix Schueren
felix.schue...@hosteurope.de wrote:
Hoogen,
Hoogen wrote:
Now R3 only receives
l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1
inet.0: 66
routers that do not understand this. But is should be okay.
-Hoogen
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Matthew Walster matt...@walster.orgwrote:
Hey there,
I'm currently using the default reference-bandwidth for OSPF (presumably
100M) and would like to change this to 10G to reflect link
Active, * = Both
172.16.40.0/29 *[IS-IS/165] 00:04:29, metric 13
to 10.0.2.1 via t1-2/0/0.35
[edit]
l...@r3#
Is my understanding right.. or is this step not required ...I do not see
this extra solution in the book..
-Hoogen
Hi All,
For a good measure I checked the link ip address between 10.0.2.5 and
10.0.2.6 there is no netmask issues This is a requirement as stated in
OSPF case study in JNCIP book. To make the link between R3-R4 to have a DR
election... So i made it an nbma interface... which is now causing
(if that is still the case).
unit 0 { multipoint; dlci 100; family inet { address
10.0.2.5/30{ multipoint-destination 10.0.2.6 dlci 100; } } }
At both ends.
HTHs
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Hoogen hooge...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
For a good measure I checked the link ip address between
Modify the syslog parameters to log all interactive CLI commands to a file
called rn-cli, where n is equal to the router number. Configure the CLI log
to permit four archived copies that will be no larger than 128K, and ensure
that CLI-related logging is also sent to 10.0.200.2, which is providing
in overdoing anything... In this case I believe I am just setting the
values without caring for the defaults.
-Hoogen
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Nalkhande Tarique Abbas
ntari...@juniper.net wrote:
The default maximum file size depends on the platform type:
* 128 kilobytes (KB) for J-series
this?
-Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
definitely help.
Thanks,
Hoogen
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi All,
Kind of silly but I am not able to figure this out.. So any help
Appreciated..
I am trying to ping 172.16.1.254.. which works if I remove the load balance
policy but doesn't if I apply it..
-Hoogen
regr...@shiraz show configuration interfaces
ge-0/0/1 {
vlan-tagging;
unit 40
27 matches
Mail list logo
